In re the Claim of Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Starr

234 A.D.2d 851, 658 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 851 (In re the Claim of Starr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Starr, 234 A.D.2d 851, 658 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an assistant manager at a retail store from March 1989 to February 1993 when he was discharged for his frequent, unexcused tardiness which persisted despite repeated warnings from his employer that failure to improve would result in the termination of his employment. The Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record contains substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding. Claimant admitted that he had a history of tardiness that had persisted despite the employer’s warnings.

Continued tardiness that persists in the face of repeated admonitions constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Paul [Hartnett], 171 AD2d 910, 911, lv denied 78 NY2d 852). The record contains substantial evidence that claimant lost his job as a result of such misconduct. The Board’s decision finding claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an assistant manager at a retail store from March 1989 to February 1993 when he was discharged for his frequent, unexcused tardiness which persisted despite repeated warnings from his employer that failure to improve would result in the termination of his employment. The Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record contains substantial evidence in support of the Board’s finding. Claimant admitted that he had a history of tardiness that had persisted despite the employer’s warnings.

Continued tardiness that persists in the face of repeated admonitions constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Paul [Hartnett], 171 AD2d 910, 911, lv denied 78 NY2d 852). The record contains substantial evidence that claimant lost his job as a result of such misconduct. The Board’s decision finding claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 851, 658 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-starr-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack